AuthorTopic: Alternative to University of London - Northumbria University (Read 13963 times)

The rules are for people with foreign law degrees. In Europe there is no JD degree only a LLB and it is common law based. I have a friend that's studying for the Cali bar as we speak and their law degree is from Sweden which is civil law based and they have an online LLM and yes, you have to register as a law student with the Cali bar examiner, once you start the LLM program or Cali program.

The below info is part of the Cali Bar rules, and based on the below rules the distance learning LLB would meet these requirements. The LLB is a qualifying law degree in Europe no matter if you got it on ground or distance learning.

(B) Obtain from a credential evaluation service approved by the Committee a certificate that the applicant’s first degree in law meets the educational requirements for admission to practice law in the foreign state or country in which it was obtained

Well good luck with that. It would seem to be a better route than a California DL degree in my estimation. If it doesn't work, you can always take a training contract and become a solicitor in England and then take the Cal Bar as well as a foreign attorney.

Rule 4.30 deals with foreign law schools, but says absolutely nothing about foreign-based distance learning programs. That leads me to believe that the issue is open to interpretation by the state bar. If so, there are several ways they could go. They could cobble together a rule from several existing rules and find that 1) since a Northumbria degree qualifies the holder to practice in the U.K., and 2) since CA accepts both LL.Bs and distance learning degrees (usually), the Northumbria LL.B qualifies.

Conversely, they could find that since foreign DL degrees are not mentioned in Rule 4.30, the rule is inapplicable. They could also find that as a non-ABA/non-CBE/non-registered foreign DL program, Northumbria cannot be found to be equivalent to an ABA/CBE degree.

I know that there's a lot of anti-DL sentiment on these boards, and that's not the basis of my skepticism. It's that Calbar, as liberal as they may be, don't seem terribly interested in allowing foreign DL degrees to qualify. I've met several CA attorneys with foreign degrees (U.K., Ireland, Phillipines), but never a foreign DL degree.

There is a very simple test you can do before spending time and money on an LL.B/LL.M in hopes of getting admitted: contact both Calbar and Northumbria and ask if any Northumbria distance learning LL.B grads have been admitted in CA. That should clear up the issue pretty fast.

Rule 4.33 Evaluation of study completed or contemplatedAn applicant may request that the Committee determine whether general or legal education contemplated or completed by the applicant meets the eligibility requirements of these rules for beginning the study of law, the First-Year Law Students’ Examination or the California Bar Examination. The request must be submitted on the required form with certified transcripts and the fee set forth in the Schedule of Charges and Deadlines.10 of 25A written response indicating whether or not the education is sufficient will be issued within sixty days of receipt of the request.

Before sinking 3 years into a program in England, surely one might be a wee bit curious if the Bar examiners would accept it first.

If I were a bar examiner, I'd surely want to know if the applicant was a US citizen or foreign national, and why they went to a foreign DL law school instead of a California one. Was it to avoid the FYSLE for example? And then going to a LLM online, yes indeed I'd be skeptical. At the very least, I'd have them take the FYLSDE just to make sure everthing was on the up and up.

No reference to the poster but foreign law degrees from certain countries would be entirely suspect altogether, it is not unusual for the sons of the very well to do in Eastern Europe and developing countries to simply purchase the degrees from the local university.

But I like the idea, the LLB plus LLM allows one to go online and avoid the bias against california DL schools however in my experience if it seems to good to be true, it likely won't work.

The one from Sweden is not liscense attorney, we can go on and on, on this, so this will be my last message.. I provided the actually document from the California Bar, it's no info from some condensed bar requirement guide, its is straight from the source with contact info.

Also there is another school, University of Washington, they have an online LLM in American Legal system, they dont make claim on their web-site but in a recent article, they did say their online LLM degree would probably meet the requirements for the California bar. So, there is JFK, FCSL, University of Washington all have indicated that their online LLM degree would meet the California requirements. Also, Regent doesn't make any claims, but if you look at their curriculum, the California Responsibility course is offered, why would a Virginia Law School be offering a California course unless their program would meet the requirement.

You indicated that you got your JD online, you should be happy that there are other avenues for people to achieve their goals but I digress. If my option doesn't work, I'm fine with it but I'm still proceeding as plan.

I have a good career and I don't have any intentions of leaving it. My career is still on the up rise, so, this is my best route, and the most cost effective, all I would be out of 20k (LLB/LLM combined) and the possibly to enhance my corporate career to VP / SR. VP level not that I need it with 2 master degrees from very good brick and motar schools and great experience. Best of luck to you.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be argumentative. The info you provided says absolutely nothing about foreign distance learning degrees. Since the rules appear to be silent on the issue, you shouldn't assume that a foreign distance learning LL.B plus an American LL.M will confer CA bar eligibility. I'm not saying it's impossible (or even unlikely!), it's just unclear.

Whenever these threads about bar admission rules get going, I always remember something you once wrote regarding Novus. It was something like "Imagine a pro per plaintiff latching on to 2-207." That really stuck with me, and I think of it every time the discussion turns to statutory interpretations. It's a great comment, and really sums up the problem.

My experience with Bar Examiners or their equivalent abroad is that if there is an issue open to interpretation, it can and will be construed against the Applicant much of the time. And if the applicant is from out of jurisdiction, make that 90% of the time.